Re: [multimob] Comment on draft-asaeda-multimob-pmip6-extension-07

[seil jeon <[e-mail]>]

Hi Hitoshi and all,


I moved the issue discussion to other title.

Regarding on the issue of Hitoshi's idea, we better use this title.

Please see below.


2011/12/12 Hitoshi Asaeda <[e-mail]>

> Hi Seil,
>
> > This discussion has been continuing repeatedly.
>
> It'd be better to move on more fundamental discussion, though..
>
> > When the MAG is connected with other PIM-SM router not over LMA, there's
> no
> > problem. PIM-SM establishes multicast routing path using RPF algorithm
> > through reflecting MAG's RIB.
>
> Whether routing "over LMA" or not is not precise.
>
> > But when the MAG is connected with several LMAs including PIM-SM, MRIB
> > SHOULD get information from PMIP routing table but "MAG's RIB doesn't
> > reflect PMIP routing" (Thomas and Hitoshi agreed it).
>
> Not very precise.
> PIM-SM does not need to use PMIP policy routing at all.
> Some MRIB entries are copied from MAG's RIB, other MRIB entries are
> separately configured if needed. The MRIB entries may use M-Tunnel
> established between MAG and LMA.
>
> Regards,
> --
> Hitoshi Asaeda
>


O.K. If my understainding is correct, your PIM-SM idea is based on not
"PMIP tunnel" but "M-Tunnel" between MAG and LMA to choose one LMA using
RPF algorithm.
And "M-Tunnel" information is in MAG's RIB.

And if then, the upstream router of MAG has nothing to be an LMA, it can be
another dedicated server for multicast support because it does not use PMIP
tunnel. So, your idea appear to me as one of specific PIM-SM application
method over dedicated multicast architecture.